Jump to content

January Statistics


holograph

Recommended Posts

The statistics for January have been posted to the statistics page.

 

It looks like veteran PFF is off to a strong start this year, with newcomer SLO Trekker close on his heels.

 

We can welcome the following geocachers to the NGS reporting ranks:

  • AshlynAustin
  • AstroD-Team
  • dandemclean
  • garyva
  • gnattang
  • I'm nuts
  • kelly@9
  • leoglovka
  • mcpusc
  • mws@scanchattanooga.com
  • rdarlington
  • rolanm
  • slabit
  • SLO Trekker
  • zapcat

Link to post

Ok, how's dis work? Are the stats from this site, or for official NGS reports. Do you have to be a paying member? Though I admit I mostly look for benchmarks that don't exist, I did have a really good January, and some NGS reports, yet I don't show up at all. I do notice my initials (CRH) double up with another user (choude) that ain't me. :D

Link to post
Ok, how's dis work? Are the stats from this site, or for official NGS reports. Do you have to be a paying member? Though I admit I mostly look for benchmarks that don't exist, I did have a really good January, and some NGS reports, yet I don't show up at all. I do notice my initials (CRH) double up with another user (choude) that ain't me.  :D

The geocaching.com stats are from this site, the NGS recovery statistics are from the NGS datasheet recovery reports. You do not have to be a paying member, but you do have to either (1) submit NGS recovery reports or (2) ask to be included in the statistics or (3) be active enough in geocaching.com that someone notices you and privately recommends that I add them to the list.

 

The stats are acquired by downloading the NGS datasheets that have been updated in the last month. When a GEOCAC recovery report is found, the initials are checked against a list of previously encountered initials. If the initials are new, I look up the geocacher who logged the mark in geocaching.com on the date that it was recovered by the NGS.

 

Once I establish a geocacher's name for the given set of initials, I don't keep rechecking each set of initials. Most likely choude reported to the NGS and used the initials before your first report, so I linked CRH to choude. If you want to be credited with your recoveries, you might consider using a different set of initials. The only way I have of discriminating between two geocachers who report with the same initials is to look at the logs for each of the PIDs on geocaching.com, and I simply don't have the time to look up each recovery report. I started doing that with two geocachers who I noticed using the same initials, and I regret doing it, since they are both rather active and it is a lot of extra work each month to separate out their reports. I can't do that for anyone else.

 

Since your initials were already used by choude, I didn't have any reason to suspect that you were finding benchmarks, so I never added you to the geocaching.com statistics capture process. I can add you to the geocaching statistics, but your NGS recovery reports aren't going to be credited under your name unless you use a unique set of initials. I don't know if the NGS recovery form limits you to three initials, but if you can use four (e.g. CRH2), or just make up some unused set of initials, then I can start giving you credit.

 

edit: added (3)

Edited by holograph
Link to post

Well, my hope was to contact choude and see if we could agree to use one or the other sets of initials. Unfortunately his email is no longer valid and his last recovery on this site was back in August of last year. IMO, this method of keeping track is a bit flawed, but based on the data available, I don't have any suggestions on improving it. Agreed that you're sorting it is for the birds. For the sake of consistancy, I'm not changing my initials. No matter, I know I found 'em :o:o

Link to post

Well, I didn't have much of a January, though I did manage to have an intersection station destroyed. (It's been "recovered" twice by that other organization since it was torn down 30+ years ago.) On to February!

 

-Matt

Edited by mapjunkie
Link to post

Already got my first February report in. I realized a mark I had recovered previously had never been reported by anybody, so I went back today to reconfirm it and make some measurements so others could find it. It was a 1934 or 5 disk, and unlike the later ones, it was about six inches in diameter- big beautiful thing it was!

Link to post
Well, my hope was to contact choude and see if we could agree to use one or the other sets of initials. Unfortunately his email is no longer valid and his last recovery on this site was back in August of last year. IMO, this method of keeping track is a bit flawed, but based on the data available, I don't have any suggestions on improving it. Agreed that you're sorting it is for the birds. For the sake of consistancy, I'm not changing my initials. No matter, I know I found 'em :o:o

If choude isn't active, I can switch the initials so you get credit for the reports going forward.

Link to post

I have a question about the NGS recovery numbers. You have me down for 6, whereas I have 9 logs down where I keep track.

 

Do you count them only after Deb lets them through the gate (they're all in now) or do you have a way to catch them earlier? And what about those you log in one month (say December) but don't get in till the next? I have a bunch of those.

 

But the main thing is, thanks for all the work you do! Good job.

Link to post

My understanding is that the system detects changes to all datasheets at the end of each month. Thus, whatever Deb put into the system in January, irregardless of when you sent it to her (via the online form) or the recovery date, will count as a January recovery. If she hasn't entered it yet, or it hasn't made it through the NGS computer systems to the datasheets accessible by web, it hasn't counted yet, and probably will next month.

 

The benchmarking community does not have access to the innerworkings of the NGS computers/systems, and thus can only read what comes out of it.

Edited by BuckBrooke
Link to post

I don't know if choude is active. He's in New England, and benchmark hunting this time of year can be a bit tough. I've had the luck of unbelievably warm weather, but don't know about his area. He was here first, and it might be presumptuous to change the initials. He'll likely be back and we'll sort it out then.

Link to post

"Destroyed" stations

 

Here's another "special case". In January I logged two recoveries as "Good" on stations that were marked as "DESTROYED" by the NGS. I've sent my documentation to Deb and she may remove the Destroyed marker. They are

 

KV0584

KU3595

 

Since we all know there are many marks that are in there which probably should be marked DESTROYED, I figured there are probably some which were marked DESTROYED which shouldn't have been. So I check everything in my search area, including Destroyed stations. Since these aren't usually rerturned via queries (unless you ask for them) they may get missed.

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC
Link to post

Destroyed stations don't get counted, because the downloads don't include the destroyed stations. Otherwise, everything that shows as an updated datasheet during the month gets counted for that month.

 

Once the datasheet gets published, the recovery is counted for the month of the recovery date, but nothing is counted until it is published. If you would today enter recoveries for December, next month you should see your 2005 count change.

 

Papa Bear, if I look at your geocaching log history, I see 11 log entries in January. Of these, two have no recovery report for you on the current NGS datasheets (as of this moment). Three others have 2005 recovery reports, so they should be included in your 2005 number. The remaining six were counted for 2006.

  • KU1431 - not published
  • KU1057 RG 20051227 - Counted for December 2005
  • KU1449 - not published
  • KU3553 RG 20051219 - Counted for December 2005
  • KU4039 RG 20050112 - Counted for January 2005
  • KV4131 RG 20060104
  • KU3979 RG 20060110
  • KU3927 RG 20060110
  • KU1060 RG 20060110
  • KU4011 RG 20060120
  • KU3544 RG 20060120

edit: added list of recoveries

Edited by holograph
Link to post

Papa Bear, if I look at your geocaching log history, I see 11 log entries in January. Of these, two have no recovery report for you on the current NGS datasheets (as of this moment). Three others have 2005 recovery reports, so they should be included in your 2005 number. The remaining six were counted for 2006.

  • KU1431 - not published
  • KU1057 RG 20051227 - Counted for December 2005
  • KU1449 - not published
  • KU3553 RG 20051219 - Counted for December 2005
  • KU4039 RG 20050112 - Counted for January 2005
  • KV4131 RG 20060104
  • KU3979 RG 20060110
  • KU3927 RG 20060110
  • KU1060 RG 20060110
  • KU4011 RG 20060120
  • KU3544 RG 20060120

edit: added list of recoveries

Holograph

 

We're in good sync on this. The others I logged on NGS were the two Destroyed marks (which are published) and one unpublished mark. I guess if these stations ever go into "normal" status, the recoveries will appear. Interestingly, KU4039 is a typo. It was just done this month. Should I ask Deb to change it, or should I just forget about it? It was for a chimney which I logged as "Not Found, Presumed Destroyed", so it has little relevance for the professional community. KU1431 or KU1449 (on GC) were just Notes with some information on marks I had logged as "Found" previously. I never logged them on NGS since they had been recently logged there by others.

 

And I wasn't really too concerned about a few minor differences, I was more interested in what gets counted and when. You've answered that nicely, thanks again.

 

Pb

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC
Link to post

More benchmarks were reported to NGS during 2005 than in the years 2001-2004, combined. Good job, everybody!

 

-Paul-

 

"You know....this benchmark hunting thing might just catch on!"

 

That's awesome! I found two today, reported one as not found. It's LONG gone, but I don't have a digital camera to report it destroyed. Maybe next time I'll bring my laptop and webcam! :D

 

Seriously, I've only hunted a few of these, but it's a lot of fun, because you're still hunting something, but the amount I've learned about local history just in the time I've been doing it is great. And I thought I was pretty up on my local history already.

 

You can expect to see many more reports from me. I actually really get a kick out of benchmarking.

Link to post

More benchmarks were reported to NGS during 2005 than in the years 2001-2004, combined. Good job, everybody!

 

-Paul-

 

"You know....this benchmark hunting thing might just catch on!"

 

... I've only hunted a few of these, but it's a lot of fun, because you're still hunting something, but the amount I've learned about local history just in the time I've been doing it is great. And I thought I was pretty up on my local history already.

 

You can expect to see many more reports from me. I actually really get a kick out of benchmarking.

 

There being relatively few BMs locally, that aspect doesn't work for me too well, although while I'm out in road trips, some BMs *do* give me a sense of the history of wherever I am.

 

For me, aside from the fun of finding one of these things (I don't know why they jazz me, but they do), the neat thing about submitting Recovery Reports is that I am Serving a Purpose. If things have changed, or the last Recovery left something to be desired, being able to update the conditions is good. And good Recoveries help future Surveyors, builders, etc. As minor as it is, my Recoveries are a part of a national effort. If even one of my Recoveries helps someone down the line to do a better job, then I've justified my existence, a little. It's a very small bit of immortality, in a way.

 

Jim

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...